New York's Chait Boosts Charter Schools—but No Longer Mentions Spouse's Policy Role in Charter School IndustryEOIN HIGGINS   Jonathan Chait (image: HarperCollins)
New York magazine political writer Jonathan Chait penned a column last month (10/7/20) attacking teachers unions for their activism in keeping schools closed during the coronavirus pandemic, as remote learning continues for children across the country. The unions, Chait wrote, "have been an influential force against reopening schools even in cities and states where elected officials felt it could be done with reasonable safety." This has led to a situation in Washington, he continued, wherein restaurants and bars are open even as the schools are closed. This bizarre combination reflects the balance of political pressure, not any logical interpretation of public health.
It was a damning indictment of the decision to focus on remote learning, and placed much of the blame for closures at the feet of teachers unions, a familiar punching bag for Chait. The New York writer has gone after teachers unions repeatedly during his time at the magazine, while extolling the virtues of the charter school movement. What Chait only mentions infrequently in these articles is that his spouse, Robin Chait, has spent her career in education, often working with groups affiliated with charters. Currently, Robin Chait works as a policy advisor to education nonprofit consulting firm WestEd on the group's National Charter School Resource Center. This role, which began in October 2018, came after five years as director of policy, development and communications for Center City Public Charter Schools, according to her LinkedIn profile. Chait's lack of disclosure of these roles would appear to violate the code of ethics of New York's parent company, Vox Media, which states: Any editorial team member or contributors will be recused from a story and/or publicly disclose conflicts of interest when editorially appropriate. This may include a personal or family relationship.
Vox communications vice president Lauren Starke told FAIR that those rules were not applicable in Chait's case. "Robin Chait is a consultant and policy expert, not an activist or lobbyist, and her compensation structure isn't tied to any political outcome," said Starke: There is not generally an expectation that opinion journalists disclose ways in which their family members' jobs might be affected by changes in policy at the broadest national level—how, for instance, a doctor has an interest in health care policies or a professor in higher ed budgeting—and we don't think it's fair or appropriate to hold Jonathan to a different standard here.
 Robin Chait (image: LinkedIn)
But Robin Chait’s WestEd bio describes her “policy advisor” work as involving the development of “publications, tools and resources for charter authorizers, state education agencies and charter management organizations.” So the advice she’s offering on education policy is being offered to government bodies; this would seem to make influencing government policy part of her job, much like a lobbyist or activist does; she is not merely passively affected by policy, like a doctor or professor. And her previous job involved communications, likely meaning that part of her task was to get pro–charter school material into the media—like the sort of pieces her husband was writing. Chait did not provide comment for this article, but wrote in an addendum to a piece in 2019 (1/15/19), after Ben Mathis-Lilley in Slate (1/4/19) criticized him for not disclosing that his spouse “works in charter school advocacy”: My wife works for an education research organization and is not engaged in advocacy. My wife is a strong personal supporter of education reform, but that is not her job—neither my wife nor her employer attempt to persuade policymakers, voters or anybody else to expand their charter sector.
‘Disservice’ to Readers Susan McGregor, a full-time researcher at Columbia's Data Science Institute and former professor at the School of Journalism who stressed she was only speaking for herself, told FAIR that she thought it was "a disservice not to disclose in this case," and that the anger of people in the comments of Chait's latest piece reinforced that point. "This undisclosed bias and relationship is reducing people's interest in his work and his credibility," said McGregor, adding that Chait's lack of disclosure on the issue could "potentially be reducing the value of his work." Whether or not the article is hard reporting or opinion, said McGregor, in her view the default should be to disclose. "I think you should always disclose," said McGregor. "Less transparency looks like you are trying to hide something." Jennifer Royer, communications director for the Society of Professional Journalists, told FAIR that her group's Code of Ethics encourages journalists to avoid any conflict of interest to best serve the public. If Chait must write about charters and teachers unions, she continued, there are workarounds. "There are a few ways it could be handled," said Royer: His employer could assign any articles regarding charter schools to a different reporter. This would be the preferred option. Or they could allow him to write about the topic, as an opinion writer or columnist, and be upfront about the conflict.
Inconsistencies Raise Questions FAIR reviewed Chait's recent New York columns, which are a mix of opinion journalism and reporting, from October 2018, looking for ones that focused on or mentioned charters and teachers unions sufficiently to require disclosure of his wife's role with WestEd. We found six that met that criteria. Of those six articles, only one disclosed his wife's position, in “What Happens When Elizabeth Warren Sells Out to Powerful Interests?” (1/13/19), and then only in an addendum after criticism from Slate (1/14/19).  Jonathan Chait (New York, 5/18/19) describes charter schools as "one of the most successful social policy innovations in decades, and...a lifeline of opportunity for hundreds of thousands of poor urban children"—without mentioning that his spouse works as a policy advisor to the charter school industry. In the remaining five stories—“Bernie Sanders Wants to Destroy the Best Schools Poor Urban Kids Have” (5/18/19), “Elizabeth Warren Tells Poor Parents to Fix Their Own Schools” (12/6/19), “Trump and DeVos Propose to Eliminate Federal Charter School Funds” (2/10/20), “Parents Are Flocking to Virtual Schools and Homeschooling. They’ll Find a Minefield” (8/4/20) and “Remote Learning Is a Catastrophe. Teachers Unions Share the Blame” (10/7/20)—Chait's wife is only mentioned once, in last month's article, and only in the context of working from home, not as a charter school consultant: My two children, both enrolled in public schools that have gone remote since the pandemic began, have lost a fair amount of learning, but benefitted from an array of privileges. My wife and I both have white-collar jobs we can do at home, and can provide the (fortunately occasional) assistance high-schoolers require.
Prior to Robin Chait's work with WestEd, her husband was more forthcoming about her role. In "Why Do Teacher Unions Hate Eva Moskowitz?” (9/5/14), “Teacher Unions Still Haven’t Forgiven Michelle Rhee, Don’t Care How Well Her Policies Work" (5/27/16), ”Why Was Betsy DeVos the One Trump Nominee Who Provoked Opposition?” (2/10/17), “Charters Didn’t Cause Segregation. They’re a Solution for Its Victims” (12/8/17) and “Obama’s Education Legacy Has Been Forgotten. Now He Has to Save It” (2/27/18), Chait mentioned his wife's role in education policy and the charter school movement in the first writing. When her role was frequently disclosed by her husband, Robin Chait was working for a particular group of charters, whereas her role today involves advising on policy for the charter movement as a whole. Chait's lack of disclosure around his wife's position struck SPJ Ethics Committee member Andy Schotz as peculiar. Schotz, who said he was only speaking for himself and not in any capacity for the SPJ, told FAIR that a reader without knowledge of Chait's background could end up thinking less of the credibility of the writer and the magazine after discovering the semblance of conflict. And, Schotz added, the opinion nature of the column doesn't let the writer off the hook. "If he's writing advocacy that's his personal opinion, that's not covering it in a neutral way and doesn't absolve him of the responsibility," said Schotz. "Disclosure is the easy way to avoid that." A Pattern That Leads to Mistrust Chait's inconsistency does not make him the only—or even the worst—offender on transparency with readers. Journalist Salena Zito, who writes for publications like the New York Post and Atlantic, has repeatedly come under fire for her improbable approach to reporting wherein she somehow repeatedly finds man-on-the-street interviewees whose views align with her right-wing bent. In 2018, HuffPost's Ashley Feinberg (8/30/18) discovered multiple instances of questionable quotes and a consistent refusal to properly disclose the conflicts of interest of Zito's subjects. The problems have continued across corporate media. New York Times reporter Elaina Plott in late October initially failed to disclose the Republican Party affiliations of two sources for “Around Atlanta, Many White Suburbanites Are Sticking With Trump” (10/21/20)—referring to a GOP political consultant merely as “an interior decorator, married with two children and a University of Georgia alumna” (Press Watch, 10/23/20). And Fox News—which has myriad credibility problems—was dinged by Media Matters for America's Bobby Lewis (Twitter, 10/28/20) for not disclosing the professional political background of Lauren Debellis Appell, a writer for the network and other far-right news outlets. As FAIR has reported on numerous occasions going back decades, nondisclosure of conflicts can easily lead to a lack of trust in media—earned or not. McGregor, the data researcher, said that in her view the erosion of trust in media over the last four years means that writers and outlets should take easy wins when they're presented. "With regard to journalistic credibility and trust, there are easy wins you can get, and one is disclosing, even over-disclosing," said McGregor. ‘What's the Harm?’ Because Chait has disclosed his wife's role in the past, Schotz said, that's all the more reason for him to be consistent with doing so now and in the future. A piece in Washington Monthly (3/17/16) four years ago by Alexander Russo, addressing the same issue, featured a quote by Chait expressing pride in his wife's work, but no explanation for the unpredictable disclosures. Schotz said he found the inconsistency puzzling. "He doesn't do it every time, and I don't understand why not," said Schotz. "For me, I would do it every time—what's the harm?" Nina Berman, a professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, agreed. "It appears he has disclosed before," said Berman, "and so I think it's fair to ask New York magazine why they didn't require it for his last piece, which is so clearly an attack on the NYC union, while praising DC charter schools." But Vox's Starke said that Chait's prior disclosures did not mean there was any requirement to do so again. "Any decision by Jonathan to mention this in the past—or future—in no way conflicts with our policy as stated," said Starke. McGregor told FAIR she was perplexed that he would not disclose, given the existence of Google and other search engines. "It's not really a smart move," she said, "because there is an internet, and people will figure it out. And that can create a negative impact of perception for the writer, if not the organization."
Featured image: Photo of a teacher from a Jonathan Chait column (New York, 10/7/20) critical of teachers unions. | 
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.